Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-23-2004
USA v. Garcia
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-1633
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Garcia" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 992.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/992
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-1633
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
RAMON GARCIA
Appellant.
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00676-1)
District Judge: The Honorable William G. Bassler
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 30, 2004
BEFORE: NYGAARD and FUENTES, Circuit Judges,
and O’NEILL,* District Judge.
* Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr., Senior District Judge for the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
(Filed: February 23, 2004)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Ramon Garcia pleaded guilty to distribution of at least five
kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The District Court sentenced the
Appellant to seventy months imprisonment, which was at the lowest end of the sentencing
guideline range for his crime and criminal history. Garcia filed a notice of appeal, pro se,
and we appointed Arza R. Feldman, Esq., to assist with the appeal. Attorney Feldman
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel
indicated that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
We have carefully reviewed the Appellant’s brief, along with the responsive
brief of the United States and other matters of record. Garcia did not file a pro se brief.
We conclude, after our own review of the entire record, that the District Court did not err.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
The motion of defense counsel to withdraw will be granted.